Problem: Women who find to find love are faced with deadbeats or players. Solution: legalise prostitution now. I am not joking. This is the only effectively solution. The logic is simple. Why be a scam artists conning girls into bed when you can get it done with money? The consequence is that those men who are looking for relationships are indeed seriously looking for relationship. No adverse selection problem. Conservatives are dead wrong in thinking commercial sex damages morality. Prostitution is the oldest profession in the world. Prostitution strengthens marriages. It solves the fundamental problem of adverse selection. Men who go for sex go for sex directly without have to be pretending to go for a relationship. Men who go for relationship are therefore relaible enough to be taken seriously by women. Women do not have to be fearful of players or playing the game the males wanted if the sex ratio turns bad against women. Sex is Sex. Relationship is relationship.
Now you're setting up a false dilemma. The choice isn't between dragging society back to the 50's or having people who don't marry because they're working. That idea is totally ridiculous. I think you'll find that for the past few decades, people have been working and getting married. I also reject the idea that in the 50's every household (or even the vast majority) had a SAHM. Hurting women to help society doesn't work out, as women are (obviously) part of society.
I have been married for over 30 years and in the be gaining I worked while my wife played with the kids. She wasn't as much a prostitute as I would have liked but we got a long. Then I got hurt and she went to work and did well. She could have picked up another man if she had wanted to go that route but we are still together and I'm making more money than she is again. I have seen way too many people split up for crazy reasons and I have seen women stay with worthless brutes too. The demasculinization of the White male is a progressive goal that will leave the planet in wren if it continues.
Herding mentality is a dangerous one. People do not do crazy things because some cult leftist academic says so. As I observe, people lose their sanity because of a pervasive tendency to follow what others are doing. Post-60 feminist hypes are just one of the the intellectual jibberish that do not have what so ever empirical evidence to back them up. And these intellectuals do not have to be accountable when people fail their lives. Do what your peers are always doing and I say good luck!
Most of the relationships started with foreseeable tragidies. My parents were in their late 50s and were married for 30 years. They were very different individuals but shared very similar ideals on big issues such as family, spending and kids, so these along ensured the survival fo the marriage. If most people were half as serious in relationship as finding a long term business partner for themselves, a lot of nasty breakups are avoidable.
People cannot just point fingers. Ultimately it is individual responsibility to stay away from herd mentality. I can publish a book on the benefits of seeing a witch doctor for your kid's illness. No one with some sort of sanity woould have taken me seirously. But people lose their sanity when it became fashionable for their peers to do the same thing. Peer pressure should be the 8th deadly sin.
I know a number of good looking Silicon Valley White guys looking for Asian American wives, or the best case "FOB" from Asia. Their reasoning is simple. Feminism is something too expensive for them to support in the long run. Caucasian wives, equality of rights, ok, but not equality of responsibility. Feminism seems to teach women to forget about taking care of their looks and only taking care of their intelligence about marriage, something men fails to appreciate. The conclusion to me is that feminism lowers the value of a female participant in the marriage market. Self-sabotage in short.
You really need to be specific here. Those before the second world war were literally about equal rights. Insanity were more of teachings as follow. *Women need to actively go for hook up and one night stands to prove that they can be as dominating as men. There is no difference between the demands of love and sex between men and women (Rejection of empirical facts and history) *Men need to pay back for their past domination of women (vengence) *The current domination of men in elite fields is a indication of man's sexism against women (nonsensical reductionism)
Nice try. The destruction of femininity as something real and good coupled with the recasting of womanhood into some asexual machination is the insanity I referred to. If it were only just about equal rights...
The first bullet isn't a teaching. That was mostly just youthful stupidity on the part of the Baby Boom generation. The second bullet is part of militant feminism, but it hardly describes the majority of feminists. The third bullet had some influence on Affirmative Action, and it made sense in the beginning. Several fields really were closed off from women about 50 years ago or so. Over time, this has changed, and it would probably be a good idea to end all gender-based Affirmative Action at this point.
Which makes a lot of sense considering how many of my peers tend to go for Asian guys. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2000/02/20/why-asian-guys-are-on-a-roll.html
Interesting article! Gotta admit, I had to skip parts of it, but I would like to make a couple of points: Yeah the main force behind the described process is 'feminism', but I think it goes further than that. And it's not the male:female ratio that plays the main role - that ratio hasn't significantly changed, besides maybe temporarily due to wars and then the social changes that followed were also temporary and eventually levelled out. What we are seeing, however, is a consistent and obvious social shift. So it's not the numbers balance that caused it but rather the availability of sex, and I am not saying this with some kind of prudish agenda, lol. Before feminism happened, society by and large frowned upon sex outside of wedlock. Under those conditions, in order to 'secure' himself a woman, man HAD to offer her something valuable in exchange for sexual access (and a chance to reproduce) - commitment, care, financial stability etc. Of course, this also created a significant social, financial and political advantage in men's favor, with all it involved. They had the power and they called the shots, but they also used this power to take care of women and they were committed to their women. One of the things that coincided with the rise of feminism was the rise of sexual permissibility (I hate using the word promiscuity because it has a judgmental ring to it). Social restrictions on sex outside of wedlock started disappearing and sex became easily available to men. Under those conditions, men have less motivation to seek marriage, or even commitment in relationships. They just have no reason to do so. This is why I think the feminist movement shot itself in the foot, in a way. It equalized social emancipation of women with sexual "liberation", thereby abolishing one of women's most potent social weapons. The trick is that women can control their sex drive better. This automatically places them in the position of control of their relationship with men. When women withhold sex and restrict it to committed relationships - they get committed men and strong families. When women giver sex easily - they get playboy men who can be the most successful in the world, but just not interested in anything serious, because why would they? Women have an immense power over social dynamic, not "only" because they are intelligent and strong but also for the simple fact that they are women Feminism that promotes sexual liberation automatically denies them this power. I think that our society will reverse the trend though. Women are starting to realize what's going on and this article is a sign of it. They do want commitment and are disappointed when they don't find it. Well, can't have the cake and eat it too. If we want commitment, we must act like we do.
The real implied destruction of feminism is on the behaviour of women in the relationship aspect. It creates a culture of peer pressure to be "independent" and "dominant" without any rationale consideration of what both men and women want in a relationship. Feminism is just nonsense. But when nonsense became a peer pressure that became destructive.
False dilemma? You are the one making wild accusations of dragging people back to the fifties and forcing women to marry abusive husbands. That's a false dilemma. I'm being critical of the crappy results of the Left's social revolution. Society can admit that things have gone poorly and move on to establish better social norms. No need for fetters unless your partner approves. No one is hurting women. The OP is an article by a woman lamenting the current situation, and it is far from the first. BTW- will somebody please marry Maureen Dowd! _ _
Well thats a hit on target. Women in other countries knew a simple common sense that American and many Western women lack of. That is the ability to "sell" themselves to the highest bidder, in return for commitement, financial stability or emotional understanding. The winners of a permissive 60s were poor jocks who can get it easily. (Rich guys always can have sex) I always joked and debate with my prof in college that the feminism in the 60s was defacto a "male class struggle". In fact women happiness index dropped compared to the past before modern feminism.
I didn't say anything about forcing women to marry abusive men. I mentioned that if a woman finds herself married to an abusive man, not having any resources to leave is a bad situation. That's not a false dilemma, it happens. I think most people would agree that it's a bad situation. I know you're being critical of the "social revolution", I'm pointing out how the alternative is worse. That's why there was a revolution. Because things sucked. No one is hurting women, you're just tossing around ideas that would end up hurting women.
Another thing is the ban of commercial sex which is destructive for healthy relationships. Most men want a relationship in some periods of their lifes but all men want sex. So they have to "scam" for one even though they have no intention of commitement at the period. There will be no playboys, literally , if sex can be easily available by a few pieces of Ben Frankline. And women will not spend a hard time differentiating between sincere guys and playboys.
